 MrPedantic wrote: |
|
But at bottom, it seems to me that all the writer wants to say is "we are big; therefore we don't understand things that are small".
|
|
Not to disagree, but what kind of concept is that? We have big brains that allow us to 'understand' many things about the world of the small, even on the scale of microscopic life. Our big size is not what prevents us from understanding the world as it is sensed by small creatures. We seem capable of imagining/understanding their world quite well.
If we say there is no significant difference between--
1) we are prisoners because of our size
2) we have our sense of the world because of our size--
then we have to wonder what argument Taka's book is making. I would submit that it is the intention of the author in calling (2) the right answer to say that we are prisoners of the sense we have of the world because our body apparatus is what it is, size being one factor. It is not the author's intention to say that we are prisoners of our sense of the world more than small creatures are.
(I keep thinking I can say what I mean better than before, but I may be only repeating myself.)